Given that most members on this forum enjoy viewing photos taken by other members, and often post their own Flickr or other external hosting sites, perhaps you would consider posting your website address ?

Best regards,

John

Nice try, John, but I expect there will be some reason why this is not possible.

__________________John

"A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there — even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau

Well Zukio there is ...all the photos I have are from Nikon D810 so you wont want to look at those and when I did post on another site members use some google picture search tool to locate my website and cuaused problems ..so sorry no .Judges from the MPA etc have given an opinon and thats enough for me.I pick up my nikons to make money and my olympus to relax ..Its low profile for street use ..cheap if it gets stolen but 16mp and one card ..no sorry too risky for commercial use . Now all relax respect others views and go enjoy your image making.

Well Zukio there is ...all the photos I have are from Nikon D810 so you wont want to look at those and when I did post on another site members use some google picture search tool to locate my website and cuaused problems ..so sorry no .Judges from the MPA etc have given an opinon and thats enough for me.I pick up my nikons to make money and my olympus to relax ..Its low profile for street use ..cheap if it gets stolen but 16mp and one card ..no sorry too risky for commercial use . Now all relax respect others views and go enjoy your image making.

Please don't assume that I wouldn't want to view an image just because it was shot on a Nikon, or any other camera - it's the result that counts. One of my favourite photographers, Galen Rowell, used Nikons exclusively and what was good enough for him is certainly good enough for me! In my younger, fitter days when I was able to lug a medium format (film) system plus camping gear up hills with comparative ease, I probably would have used a 36mp full frame DSLR had they been available, despite my inherent dislike of the 3:2 aspect ratio (plenty of scope to crop with that number of pixels).

Sounds like you had a bad experience with another forum, probably something like Talk Photography, and I'm sorry to hear that (hope you didn't rub them up the wrong way ). It's a shame, because I would prefer to learn from your experience and ability rather than just have a rather tiresome debate about the relative merits of two camera systems that are equally good in the context of the purpose for which they were designed.

Just one question about your reply, you appear to be saying that 16mp is no longer sufficient for commercial use, does that apply to cameras such as the D4?

__________________John

"A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there — even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau

Th D4 as you well know is a sport action camera produced (d3 d4 d5) for the Olympic games where high FPS low light ability is required. 16MP is all that is required for magazines etc and too much more lowers the FPS and buffer gets problems
I dont think you would use an olympus for that purpose ..where are the lenses to start with ? I dont think you would turn up at a building site either with an M5 even a chunky builder would smell a rat.Horses for courses ,the wider the lens the more MP you need ..half the focal length 4x the MP to maintain IQ etc etc ....

As a relative newcomer to "proper" (i.e. better than point and click) photography, I'd like to add a couple of comments.

First, I think these forums are for people with a wide range of capabilities and equipment budgets and ability levels, even including me. (In fact I've felt very welcomed). And also different styles of photography. The key things seem to be to want to make (and preferably share) good images, and to be open to learning and sharing experience. The forums are enriched by having a wide range of people with different experiences and interests and styles. We can all enjoy photography in our different ways.

The site is especially focussed on Olympus users, but many subjects (such as composition) are of general interest. Getting good images is only partly about equipment. (The "pro photographer with cheap camera challenge" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...CB90D96DF59DE5 is fun and instructive). And even for a person with infinite budget and carrying capacity, there are always trade-offs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistnbroke

I dont think you would turn up at a building site either with an M5 even a chunky builder would smell a rat.

That's an interesting aspect which I'm beginning to notice; the way the appearance of the type of camera you have affects people's interaction. Some street photographers deliberately choose very discreet cameras. In many contexts I'm enjoying having a camera that looks (and sounds) like a "real" camera, not like a phone or a tablet, nor like a compact. But I don't look at all like a press photographer with a couple of extra bodies with huge battered off-white Canon lenses dangling from my shoulders. In some contexts something more discrete or more pocketable could be useful. Never tried building sites!

I suppose if you're in a context where having grand looking equipment is important, but you have more modest-looking equipment, there might be cheaper ways to achieve this than buying genuine multi-thousand-pound kit. (Remember when car radios had removable fascias, and some people would use a fascia of a cheap-looking radio when parked to stop is getting stolen, and an expensive-looking one on other occasions to impress the girls?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistnbroke

Horses for courses ,the wider the lens the more MP you need ..half the focal length 4x the MP to maintain IQ etc etc ....

I've not come across that interesting rule of thumb before, though I had formed the impression that landscapes benefit especially from megapixels. But I've seen great wide-angle landscape shots from OMDs. The difference is probably most relevant if you want to make huge prints. Many folk don't.

Given that most members on this forum enjoy viewing photos taken by other members, and often post their own Flickr or other external hosting sites, perhaps you would consider posting your website address ?

Best regards,

John

If there are no pictures, it didn't happen. Sorry Pistnbroke, but if you don't show any evidence of your images then how can we take your posts seriously?

No intention of posting any pictures on this or any other forum. I have 40,000 + customer photos on my website and thats it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnheatingman

Given that most members on this forum enjoy viewing photos taken by other members, and often post their own Flickr or other external hosting sites, perhaps you would consider posting your website address ?

Best regards,

John

If there are no pictures, it didn't happen. Sorry Pistnbroke, but if you don't show any evidence of your images then how can we take your posts seriously?

Totally agree with what you say Rob.
To clarify on the lens v MP .
If you take a photo with your 16mp oly at say 28mm..and then you take another from the same spot at 14mm the picure is twice as wide and twice as tall ...Your original picture view at 28mm now only occupies 1/4 of the frame or 4 MP ...square law .
Hence landscape shooters tend to go for high MP cameras because they usually use wide lenses. I use a 14mm Samyang, fantastic lens on Nikons most horrible camera the D800...but it does the job and is now only worth £800 a drop from £2400 so not worth selling .
If you go on a building site and get to go in the crane bucket remember when you finished you wont go down to the ground but up to the crane operator who wants his picture taken !!

Pdk42 when you have been on forums as long as me you will soon sort out who knows what they are talking about without looking at pictures.

Pdk42 when you have been on forums as long as me you will soon sort out who knows what they are talking about without looking at pictures.

Sorry - no images, no respect! I can talk for days on quantum mechanics and even do some of the maths. I could even post some stuff on quantum mechanics forums (if they existed) but I haven't published any papers and that means I'm not a quantum physicist.

Maybe you're a Cartier-Bresson, maybe not. How do we know? Evidence matters.

If you take a photo with your 16mp oly at say 28mm..and then you take another from the same spot at 14mm the picure is twice as wide and twice as tall ...Your original picture view at 28mm now only occupies 1/4 of the frame or 4 MP ...square law .

This is only relevant if you crop the image taken with the 14mm lens to the same view of the 28mm and anyone who does that is clearly using the wrong lens in the first place!

I can't believe we are having the MP debate again, I stopped worrying when I found I could produce lovely sharp and detailed 16x12 prints from a 10mp E-3. 16mp seems a bit of a luxury to me and with 20mp sensors in the latest Olympus MFT cameras I really can't see there is an issue if the competition are offering slightly more pixels.

Of your 40,000 pictures, how many were taken with DSLRs of 16mp or less? Are you seriously saying that these are now no good?

Let's get things in perspective, this thread was started by an enthusiast who has found a bit of a bargain in an older model which is nevertheless brand new. I've had the same model, purchased second hand, for several years. Like many photographers on this forum we are on a budget but although we don't have the latest and greatest gear we still enjoy using what we've got. Do you really think we are impressed when you tell us how great you and your cameras are?

__________________John

"A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there — even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau

Pdk42 when you have been on forums as long as me you will soon sort out who knows what they are talking about without looking at pictures.

Paul, I just lost my resolve to stop feeding this guy's negativity and twisting, as for his claim to know what he is talking about, I hesitate to write what I really think. Here are a few of his statements.

Compaired to any camea I have ever owned the auto focus is total rubbish
In ..out ..in settle Ok in focus bleep light on ..junk
Does not matter what lens you use 4/3 or M43 ...Junk

16mp AA filter junk autofocus, poor low light ,no mic input but the VR is good and its small and cheap but not up to any serious work

Well I let my friend have the M5 to test and it came back with an Olympus 14=42 IIR MSF......PERFECTION instant focus just like a nikon.

M10 too long ago to remember ...but the image quality was bad so I sold it

When the OM-D EM-5 was launched, Olympus claimed it had the "World's fastest AF". The EM-10 has the same sensor as the EM-5 and a later processing engine albeit with three step IBIS as opposed to five. This is my final post on this thread - perhaps!

David

__________________
The beauty of not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise and is not preceded by periods of anxiety

Paul, I just lost my resolve to stop feeding this guy's negativity and twisting, as for his claim to know what he is talking about, I hesitate to write what I really think. Here are a few of his statements.

Compaired to any camea I have ever owned the auto focus is total rubbish
In ..out ..in settle Ok in focus bleep light on ..junk
Does not matter what lens you use 4/3 or M43 ...Junk

16mp AA filter junk autofocus, poor low light ,no mic input but the VR is good and its small and cheap but not up to any serious work

Well I let my friend have the M5 to test and it came back with an Olympus 14=42 IIR MSF......PERFECTION instant focus just like a nikon.

M10 too long ago to remember ...but the image quality was bad so I sold it

When the OM-D EM-5 was launched, Olympus claimed it had the "World's fastest AF". The EM-10 has the same sensor as the EM-5 and a later processing engine albeit with three step IBIS as opposed to five. This is my final post on this thread - perhaps!

I think this thread has run its course; certainly it has served its purpose in re-assuring the OP that he had found a very nice camera at a good price and I think that all of us (well nearly all) can agree on that! The thread has clearly evolved into something else and it's obvious that we are unable to engage in a constructive debate with Pistnbroke when he persists in making inaccurate and contentious statements that he cannot or will not substantiate. It's a shame, because if he does indeed have the experience and ability that he professes he might have been an asset to the forum. I'm going to close this one down.

__________________John

"A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there — even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau